further to this discussion, GB's excellent website on the posting "Website Restructured" contains a section on this watery matter. It is far more technical than I can manage & is well worth a read.

RDII, this is very interesting stuff. Thanks very much. Another piece of jigsaw refusing to fit in & a reason why. I would love to ask you some follow up questions but will reluctantly respect your wishes!!

Hi RDII,
Thanks for your honesty and courage in posting the extracts from your father's letters.
Skeptics such as myself, Joltes, and others have for a long time suspected that the flood tunnels (at least in the man-made sense) were wholly imaginary, and it is gratifying to see our view so spectacularly confirmed, and by a trained geologist at that.
I have to warn you, however, that you will now be indelibly identified with the Oak Island skeptics, irrespective of whether you are or are not an OI skeptic, and you may find that some of the OI Believers will be a little cool to you from now on.
Your integrity in making your post does however highlight the value of forums such as this; by airing all sides of the debate a lot of unknown material emerges which is relevant to determining where the truth of the matter lies.
Kindest regards,
Dennis King.

It would appear that poor 'ol Dennis has stepped on board an enemy ship and has been eviscerated by the fine honed edge of RDII's flailing sword, yuk, what a mess.

Poor RDII has steped in a puddle of smelly stuff that slithered down the pant legs of someone now making a hasty retreat to neutral and safe grounds. Once more, yuk, what a mess.

Dennis has been waiting in the wings for something like this for a long time but he fails once again to take in the whole picture offered for view, for us all to see. He should know that if you take one comment or suggestion or one piece of information, you cannot say that is the whole story. Dennis, you belie your profession by moving so quickly on this piece of information delivered by RDII.

The flood tunnels did exist, The Truro Company, Mr Dunfield and Blankenship, Restall, and others have proven it themselves. You cannot deny the drain system found on the beach, the tons of coconut fibre and of course, the tunnel itself at 111 feet discovered in an earlier part of the search, in the Money Pit, many years ago.

As for the depths RDII reports, they fly in the face of counter information that indicates that bedrock lies further down in the Money Pit area. Can we dismiss the drilling that encountered a impenetrable iron barrier at 171 feet in the Money Pit without encountering bedrock, this also indicates information to the contrary. The Heddon shaft, sunk to 154 feet, also did not encounter bedrock. The borehole 10X site did not encounter bedrock until 181 feet. Other information indicates that bedrock is encountered at around 160 feet. We all know it undulates.

I think you should go back to RDII's original posting and consider this statement, "I cannot say if these "thoughts"
as expressed by my father were suspicions or steadfast beliefs". I would ask everyone to consider this statement also, contained in another posting by RDII, " A good deal of credit must also be given to Mr. Restal. He and my father studied the drain system extensively for as long as possible, given the terrible tragedy. Restall made some significant discoveries there, and the area was later researched, mapped and documented extensively by my father". Do these statements sound to you like there are no flood tunnels and that Dunfield, Restall and others do not believe in their existence.

For Dennis to suggest that RDII is now on the side of the skeptics is a bad move. RDII is merely putting forth suspicions raised by his father and information that contradicts the norm, not a bad idea at that, it challenges people and makes for good debate. DRII is steadfastly and completely in the "believers" corner and to that I would add, remains a man with his eyes wide open.

I think future postings will clear this matter up some if RDII is not too upset with the consequences of his honesty and pragmatic posting.

For you newbies and those just passing through, hang on, it's time for a thrill ride.......

I used to "believe" that your postings were an important part of this forum but now I'm slightly "sceptical" as to whether that's the case. Robert's posting was intended to aid a discussion between myself, Procutus, Dave & Tank regarding one aspect of the OI mystery. It was qualified and in a context and should be seen as such. It also gives us more to ponder but will not lead to any cooling towards anybody.

Kind rgds

PJK

Last edited by PJK on Wed Oct 29, 2003 8:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

First, let me encourage RDII to let the comments of Dennis pass and not let them sour you. You add a lot to this forum and I'd hate to have you depart. Those of us who have posted here (and the previous forum) know there are occasional spats and misunderstandings from time to time, but it doesn't do the forum (as a community) any good for people to let "stick and stones" drive them away. I have enjoyed dialoging with you electronically and hope you continue to post here.

On another note, I am curious Tank about your last post. You seem eager to dismiss RDII's newly shared info about the "flood tunnels". While I agree that there are horizontal tunnels on OI, is it not possible that these aren't for the tranport of water at all, but serve some other purpose? I would postulate that, given the geologic evidence introduced, it is probably unlikely that the horizontal workings are hydraulic in nature.

Dave: I certainly did not dismiss DRII's information that he posted, if that is the way you read it, then allow me to assure you there was no attempt to cast his posting aside with a swish of may hand. I was merely pointing out to one and all that there is ample evidence to support the belief that the flood tunnels are real, and they do exist. I also wanted one and all to understand that the bedrock is not flat, it undulates significantly under Oak Island. On the causeway side of OI, it is on the surface, in the Money Pit area, it is deep.

As predicted, RDII's last posting has put it all in perspective now. As our friends in the world of the courts and law would say, "I rest my case".

RDII: You are indeed the bard good sir, and your postings are as always provocative, educational and sometimes, stunning with their revelations into the secret world of treasure hunters.
Last evening I gave a presentation on Oak Island to an enthusiastic group of new initiates to the OI story. I showed them photographs of Borehole 10X and explained that these were not the best photos in the world because the treasure hunters do not share all their secrets with 'ol Tank, the good stuff is hidden away, for their study. But, every now and then a tidbit is exposed, some light escapes from the box, and this mystery gets new life pumped into it. Very exciting things were discovered on Oak Island in the sixties and seventies, many have not been popularly exposed and remain hidden but to the few in the small fraternity.

Would I ever like to get my hands on your Father's letters, maps, drawings and artifacts. I would have to call in sick from my job for a few months and pour over it all and feast my curious eyes. I have said this before and I'll say it again, this stuff belongs in a museum and I am working like a little dog to see that it happens.

Posters like Dennis and lurkers like his "ol buddy will have to stay tuned to read more and more, perhaps we can woo Dennis back to the fold as it must be increasingly difficult to defend his tenuous position. Like others, I too acknowledge the skeptics freedom to post what they like. As annoying and confounding as it may be, it is good for the life of this discussion board.